United MileagePlus (Consolidated) - Cabin Lights Stay On -- Compensation?

A couple of days ago I was on UA896 HKG-ORD, and a set of the main cabin lights stayed on for the entire flight. The FA said they were broken. It illuminated the entire cabin fairly brightly--enough that my eye mask really didn't work that well. I couldn't sleep the entire flight. In this COdbaUA world, is it even worth sending in a complaint for this?

A couple of days ago I was on UA896 HKG-ORD, and a set of the main cabin lights stayed on for the entire flight. The FA said they were broken. It illuminated the entire cabin fairly brightly--enough that my eye mask really didn't work that well. I couldn't sleep the entire flight. In this COdbaUA world, is it even worth sending in a complaint for this?

Yeah let's blame CO for this issue :rolleyes: And as far as sending in a complaint knock yourself out, but don't expect much in the way of compensation. Maybe a hundred miles or so, but for a broken light i wouldnt expect much, also it could be the FA wanted to keep them on for who knows whatever reason.

Yeah let's blame CO for this issue :rolleyes: And as far as sending in a complaint knock yourself out, but don't expect much in the way of compensation. Maybe a hundred miles or so, but for a broken light i wouldnt expect much, also it could be the FA wanted to keep them on for who knows whatever reason.

The fact that the OP has been conditioned to ask for compensation is due to the age of the pmUA fleet and how often things go wrong.

The fact that the OP has been conditioned to ask for compensation is due to the age of the pmUA fleet and how often things go wrong.

And every so called elite wanting something for free these post 3/3 days.

Sickening.

And every so called elite wanting something for free these post 3/3 days.

Sickening.

+1 - And people are critical of the UA CFO saying that elites are over-entitled? This thread proves the CFO's point.

The fact that the OP has been conditioned to ask for compensation is due to the age of the pmUA fleet and how often things go wrong.

Hmmm, sounds like some FTer I (we) used to know...

dunno...would be awful to go that long with the lights on...i hate when my wife has the light on beside the bed when i want to go to sleep...

The fact that the OP has been conditioned to ask for compensation is due to the age of the pmUA fleet and how often things go wrong.

And every so called elite wanting something for free these post 3/3 days.

Sickening.

I get the impression that there has been a change in the relationship between customers and airlines. Customers are nickeled and dimed, with some big fees for changing flight details. This breeds a response of getting something back or even payback.

The fact that the OP has been conditioned to ask for compensation is due to the age of the pmUA fleet and how often things go wrong.

PMUA would give flyers compensation when they felt the service, product or customer was highly inconvenienced. I appreciated them understanding that if they say they are going to do something and they do not then maybe the customer deserves better. It tended to build loyalty too.

Of course this attitude is foreign to COdbaUA employees because the "customer is always wrong", "elites are over entitled", "we have no power to do anything", "take it or leave it or leave me alone" and "COdbaUA has the best employees in the business". This attitude is so contrary to what PMUA employees do for the customer.

PMUA would give flyers compensation when they felt the service, product or customer was highly inconvenienced. I appreciated them understanding that if they say they are going to do something and they do not then maybe the customer deserves better. It tended to build loyalty too.

Of course this attitude is foreign to COdbaUA employees because the "customer is always wrong", "elites are over entitled", "we have no power to do anything", "take it or leave it or leave me alone" and "COdbaUA has the best employees in the business". This attitude is so contrary to what PMUA employees do for the customer.

Interestingly, we even have COdbaUA employees in this thread telling the customer he is wrong! LOL.

So, if the reading light was broken on this flight, would comp be due? If so, why is lights on not also a case of 'broken'?

Hey folks, can we at least pretend we are being civil to each other? If you disagree with the post, fine. But we don't need to mock each other or mock the post -- even if you don't like the tone of the post. This angry back and forward between various groups (both PMUA and PMCO elites) does absolutely no good for this forum and I hope we can all act as adults -- disagreement is fine but denigrating each other is not what I remember as the objective of the forum.

...every so called elite wanting something for free these post 3/3 days. Sickening.

So it's "sickening" to draw attention to an egregious mechanical failure that made sleep impossible for +/-100 people on a TPAC? That's ridiculous. People don't want something for nothing. They want a minimally endurable service experience. It's absurd to give them flak for asking for it.

So it's "sickening" to draw attention to an egregious mechanical failure that made sleep impossible for +/-100 people on a TPAC? That's ridiculous. People don't want something for nothing. They want a minimally endurable service experience. It's absurd to give them flak for asking for it.

^^

If it were up to UAL employees, we would board the airplane...have them sit and await an emergency while we provided them with food/bev services...

OP: Yes, write in and tell the story. I received an (unprompted) Skykit for this exact issue on a flight a couple of months ago. It sucks, but it happens.

it could be the FA wanted to keep them on for who knows whatever reason.

Definitely 100% wrong. Believe me, FAs want as many people asleep as possible as soon as possible.

Definitely 100% wrong. Believe me, FAs want as many people asleep as possible as soon as possible.

I BELIEVE you! :D

Yeah let's blame CO for this issue :rolleyes:

If you read my post I never blamed CO for the lights staying on. It was probably because some relay down in the avionics bay has been broken for who knows how long and hasn't been fixed because it isn't on the MEL. What I wanted to know is if there was any point to complain about this with CO running the show--where you might be lucky to get something if your International First seat doesn't recline.

Forgetting your tendency to use COdbaUA you should write it and complain. I wouldn't expect any compensation but when I have had a problem with CO I did complain and was given pretty good compensation even when I wasn't expecting it. For a living I resolve problems for companies so I rarely think I deserve compensation unless it was a blatant screw up with a disregard to the clientele. This has nothing to do with CO management. But they should hear what you're experiencing and how it impacted your experience. Smi/J even publicly stated how horrible the 744s are in Y and how things need to be updated so it isn't that they're off in lala land thinking everything is great. The more they hear about the bad the more they'll notice when they fix things.


JCroweORD..Luckily mine went to bed very early and quickly but got up at 530 am every day for a work out. Her favorite thing to do was to put her cold as hell feet on my legs as she knew it would wake me up and I am not a morning person...I'm an insomniac.
If you read my post I never blamed CO for the lights staying on. It was probably because some relay down in the avionics bay has been broken for who knows how long and hasn't been fixed because it isn't on the MEL. What I wanted to know is if there was any point to complain about this with CO running the show--where you might be lucky to get something if your International First seat doesn't recline.

Hey folks, can we at least pretend we are being civil to each other? If you disagree with the post, fine. But we don't need to mock each other or mock the post -- even if you don't like the tone of the post. This angry back and forward between various groups (both PMUA and PMCO elites) does absolutely no good for this forum and I hope we can all act as adults -- disagreement is fine but denigrating each other is not what I remember as the objective of the forum.

+1

But don't expect to change folks' behavior. Some folks want to argue for the sake of arguing and some must see the world as a place of only 2 possible views, their view or the wrong view. But I'm with you on trying to have a discussion as opposed to a mocking/snarky back and forth. I'm sure I'm guilty of it sometimes but I try to minimize it.

I have received a skykit (appreciation flyer) for this exact same issue on this exact same flight. The only difference was that the light was on on the upper deck. I (1K) was offered 9k miles, $200 e-cert or 20% off coupon.

Hey folks, can we at least pretend we are being civil to each other? If you disagree with the post, fine. But we don't need to mock each other or mock the post -- even if you don't like the tone of the post. This angry back and forward between various groups (both PMUA and PMCO elites) does absolutely no good for this forum and I hope we can all act as adults -- disagreement is fine but denigrating each other is not what I remember as the objective of the forum.

+1. The tone of the post indeed has nothing to do with what happened to the OP or with your PM status. I don't think anybody would appreciate being kept awake for 12+ hours on a TPAC, but no need to attack someone just because you don't agree.

I don't think anybody would appreciate being kept awake for 12+ hours on a TPAC.....

I don't know. On SQ drinking Krug? Sure. On UA, not so much. :D

I ran into the very same problem on NH last year (plus two infant kids who in general really prefer to sleep in the dark). NH FAs smiled and apologized but nothing was done. Certainly noone offered any compensation.
The other time LH gave me EUR 50 cert for a non-reclining C seat on LAX-FRA after i wrote to them twice.

This put things in proper prospective for me and I continue to fly UA.

And every so called elite wanting something for free these post 3/3 days.

Sickening.

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you X 1000. But in these days of the airlines (and now this one in particular) nickel and dimeing every customer to death, there is nothing wrong with nickel and dimeing them right back. This new policy of SELLING even E- seats if they are a window or isle is such a disgusting thing for a "legacy" carrier to do (in fact saying to a family of 3, " You can't sit together anywhere unless you give us more $$", that they better expect for the customer to give it right back to them in spades!!!

And let's not forget, while this complaint sounds petty on the outside, how many of us sitting in F or C on a 12 hour night flight would pit up with the cabin lights being left on. I wouldn't !

The fact that the OP has been conditioned to ask for compensation is due to the age of the pmUA fleet and how often things go wrong.

No. CO couldn't care less what the customer thinks. If there was a problem CO just ignored it and they could as they dominated in their hub cities. CO is not a leader in terms of service and their compensation policy reinforces this. UA was much more responsive to the customer and actually cared. The old UA would give compensation for this malfunction on a 14 hr. flight. Now with CO in charge the I don't care attitude reigns and it is somehow the customers fault.

Hey folks, can we at least pretend we are being civil to each other? If you disagree with the post, fine. But we don't need to mock each other or mock the post -- even if you don't like the tone of the post. This angry back and forward between various groups (both PMUA and PMCO elites) does absolutely no good for this forum and I hope we can all act as adults -- disagreement is fine but denigrating each other is not what I remember as the objective of the forum.

AMEN!/Second your thoughts

motel 6 in the sky..."We'll leave the light on for ya"...

although i stay in Westin's most the time....is UAL becoming a motel 6?

The OP should have requested to speak to the purser and if it was a major problem (which it apparently was) he should have asked for a sky kit.

Kind of late now, as the NEW UA will shine him on, or give him minimal sympathy, as others have mentioned.

I am neutral on the requesting of compensation, as some things definitely should be overlooked and many things should be handled promptly and professionally by UAL, with a proper response and compensation.

Having said all that, it is apparent that a great majority of posters and lurkers on this board are ONLY interested in ONE thing and that is how to manipulate, manufacture problems and/or screw the airline out of something.

As Jerry, George, and Kramer would say, "Not that there's any thing wrong with that"!!! Or is there???:confused:

On my NRT-BKK flight last week, we were downgraded to an old 777 without the lie flats, and the pop-up IFE screen was broken so bad that it wouldn't stay up. My wife was peeved, but I rigged-up an adjustable strap to hold it by using the strap from my "European" man-purse. I used the clip ends as sliders to allow her to adjust the length when she reclined, and anchored the other end to the long, flexible over-the-shoulder light that is only present on the old "Barca Lounger" seats.

When the FAs saw it, they were initially worried that it was some sort of electronic cable rig, but I explained it and said everything was fine so not to worry. I never brought it to their attention and never uttered a word of dissatisfaction. Nonetheless, before the flight ended, they gave us two sky kits.

So, I was trying not to be a whiner and just solve the problem at hand and they gave me something anyway.

OP: If you feel like you should complain about this, you probably should. No one else can tell you how to feel.

If the lights bothered you, drop them a note. Maybe you get something, and maybe you don't.

What you definitely get is the satisfaction that you felt wronged, and you complained the one that wronged you. And it's off your chest.

Asking us to justify a course of action based on how you feel is tough, honestly.

Had that happen on an IAD-MUC flight a couple of years ago. The FAs apologized for not being able to get the lights off ... when I woke up (Ambien + eyeshades helps a bit), there were Skykits sitting on the console for my wife and I. Mine was worth $350 when redeemed, and my wife's $175 IIRC.

I don't know if Y got Skykits or not. The F cabin didn't have an issue with their lights--just Y and C--so I doubt that those pax got certs.

dunno...would be awful to go that long with the lights on...i hate when my wife has the light on beside the bed when i want to go to sleep...

You can get an awesome pair of sleep shades at Walgreen's for $5. I use them every night in hotels. But maybe I should try asking for free award points for the inconvenience of light leaking past the blackout curtains:p since I don't get any points in the first place for my 150 nights a year in hotels.

FAB

FAB

Hey folks, can we at least pretend we are being civil to each other? If you disagree with the post, fine. But we don't need to mock each other or mock the post -- even if you don't like the tone of the post. This angry back and forward between various groups (both PMUA and PMCO elites) does absolutely no good for this forum and I hope we can all act as adults -- disagreement is fine but denigrating each other is not what I remember as the objective of the forum.

Words of wisdom (as usual). ^

You want compensation because the lights were on and you couldn't sleep on a flight? Ridiculous. Rainey was right, people are getting more and more over-entitled.

If the beverage cart hits your seat and wakes you up, do you get compensation?

If someone in the cabin is snoring and you can't sleep, do you get compensation?

An airplane is a shared space, and you can't have every comfort that you can have in a space of your own. If this isn't acceptable to you, then get a private jet.

A couple of days ago I was on UA896 HKG-ORD, and a set of the main cabin lights stayed on for the entire flight. The FA said they were broken. It illuminated the entire cabin fairly brightly--enough that my eye mask really didn't work that well. I couldn't sleep the entire flight. In this COdbaUA world, is it even worth sending in a complaint for this?

I'm not sure why you couldn't sleep, but I doubt the light was the sole reason.

Instead of complaining after the fact, you probably should have been proactive and covered your face with a pillow or blanket. I wouldn't have liked it, but it's better than losing a night's sleep.

So it's "sickening" to draw attention to an egregious mechanical failure that made sleep impossible for +/-100 people on a TPAC? That's ridiculous. People don't want something for nothing. They want a minimally endurable service experience. It's absurd to give them flak for asking for it.

What a laugh. Do you have any evidence that anywhere near 100 people couldn't sleep? People sleep in bright daylight on planes. Not ideal for sleep, but it's not "impossible," especially with an eye mask, which tends to block the vast majority of light.

You can get an awesome pair of sleep shades at Walgreen's for $5. I use them every night in hotels. But maybe I should try asking for free award points for the inconvenience of light leaking past the blackout curtains:p since I don't get any points in the first place for my 150 nights a year in hotels.

FAB

+1

Yeah let's blame CO for this issue.

Honestly, unless you are a vampire, what difference does it make?

If you need sleep on the plane, pack a pair of eyeblinds. I always bring those on overnighters, or on flights where I want to sleep.

Have we grown spoiled and unrealistic, in what we what compensation for?

WOW...just fell into the land of Uncontinent can do no wrong.:rolleyes:

Fun to hear the yelling at descent. Good to know that the line must now be towed.....

Hey folks, can we at least pretend we are being civil to each other? If you disagree with the post, fine. But we don't need to mock each other or mock the post -- even if you don't like the tone of the post. This angry back and forward between various groups (both PMUA and PMCO elites) does absolutely no good for this forum and I hope we can all act as adults -- disagreement is fine but denigrating each other is not what I remember as the objective of the forum.
Hear hear!!!!!!

I have no idea whether lights on or not is compensation-worthy or what it's like as thankfully, it's never happened to me.
But to say CO never gives compensation is a blatant lie. I rarely complain to the airline - usually I don't find it a worthwhile complaint, even when I do, many times I just can't be bothered. But the rare times I have complained, they gave me compensation. One time, they completely screwed up with meals and didn't have a KSML for me, EWR-TLV. (For the record, a CO FA went above and beyond to help me out - there was an unopened main that someone stood up to threw out cuz he didn't want it, so the FA made sure I got it. For the tray part, he literally went around looking for unopened parts (in the KSML, every piece of the meal is sealed inside the tray, like a roll or a salad), and managed to get me a full meal. In my complaint, I made sure he was well noted for his unbelievable service. The ISM was also great on the ground, calling everyone to see if there were anymore KSMLs at EWR. So fantastic service exists on both airlines; just depends on the FA.) Anyways, I wrote in, and I even said I didn't care about compensation - I was writing to make sure they know so that it doesn't happen in the future. Got 2,500 miles and a 15% e-voucher, as well as a solid looking apology.

To OP's question - sure. No problem.

The real issue is will COdbaUA acknowledge the issue and if compensation, if provided, is reasonable or not.

(That's why always if you feel you need compensation, you should ask for a skykit immediately.)

Personally - I don't think this is some over-entitled situation unless those of you who say OP is over-entitled ride on a 16-hour flight with the light on.

I don't know if Y got Skykits or not. The F cabin didn't have an issue with their lights--just Y and C--so I doubt that those pax got certs.

Y has skykits as well. Once, I made the purser (sort of) to distribute skykits for all the pax on the flights.

Honestly, unless you are a vampire, what difference does it make?

If you need sleep on the plane, pack a pair of eyeblinds. I always bring those on overnighters, or on flights where I want to sleep.

Have we grown spoiled and unrealistic, in what we what compensation for?

If I'm paying $3000+ (or $300) to fly across the largest ocean on earth the lights better damn well shut off on a night flight. OP is absolutely entitled to compensation and to suggest he/she is "spoiled" for doing so is absurd.

motel 6 in the sky..."We'll leave the light on for ya"...


Best post in this thread!!


How about these solutions?

1. (Carefully) break each light around your seat, ensuring that you gather and dispose of all the glass. If the crew complain, say "You already said they were broken."

2. Get out the tool kit and take out the duct tape that every UA flight carries to take care of 90% of repair issues on these plane, then cover the lights.

:D

Vouchers for miles are a sucker's game. There are no more award / UG seats being created to acommodate the additional miles being issued. In fact, there are cuts due to capacity.

Throwing 1,000 miles at OP means nothing to UA. Eventually, in order to get those miles off the books, UA will simply raise the # of miles required for a given award.

So, folks can't have it both ways and the threads asking about compensation for petty inconveniences ought to be merged with the threads containing rants about award / UG unavailability.

Vouchers for miles are a sucker's game. There are no more award / UG seats being created to acommodate the additional miles being issued. In fact, there are cuts due to capacity.

Throwing 1,000 miles at OP means nothing to UA. Eventually, in order to get those miles off the books, UA will simply raise the # of miles required for a given award.

So, folks can't have it both ways and the threads asking about compensation for petty inconveniences ought to be merged with the threads containing rants about award / UG unavailability.

Miles for cash must be the ultimate sucker's game!
And all of the credit cards that give sign-up bonuses are really scamming all of those low-budget travelers, tricking them with the promise of a free Hawaiian vacation. The scale of the rip-off is truly astounding. It's just like our country: Airlines print miles like our bankrupt government prints money! Where will it all end?

The horror, the horror! :)

I hate it when on a trans pac, some person, (not the airline) decides that since it is his/her window shade, they will keep it open. The super bright sun, shinning right aross the plane into my face. Much brighter on me than any cabin light. The person whose shade it is isn't getting that angle of light, they are screened by the fusealage, but me, across the aisle, laying down am getting the brunt of it. It is so bright that cabin lights on or off, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Cabin lights? They aren't all that bright and are not focused directly on your face, but are both mild and difuse All I do there is a) cover my face a bit, b) roll to a side, or roll to the other side. Better yet, I use my eyelids. When I close them, the mild cabin lights get blocked out. I suggest that the OP should close his/her eyes to try to block the mild cabin lights from interfereing with his/her circadean rhythym. If this fails, a very bright strobe in the face has been shown to reset the zeitgeber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeber It has something to do with the SCN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprachiasmatic_nucleus . I happen to have a very powerful external flash for my camera, that I am willing to shoot at full power for anyone needeing a reset to their sleep patterns. http://www.lighttherapy.com.au/circadian_rhythms.php My rates for this therapy are very reasonable.

edit: I actually woke up too early today, so in a crabby mood, that said, perhaps I was a bit too hard on the OP. Sleep is important and can be difficult to achieve for some people. For the vast majrity of people, a dim not focused light, such as cabin lights will not prevent them from sleeping. Maybe the OP is an insomniac and needs the optimal conditions to sleep. Either way, yes, it is an inconvienence, but a minor one, and asking for $$ IMHO, is what leads people like Rainey to make some crazy statements.

So it's "sickening" to draw attention to an egregious mechanical failure that made sleep impossible for +/-100 people on a TPAC? That's ridiculous. People don't want something for nothing. They want a minimally endurable service experience. It's absurd to give them flak for asking for it.

I know I will be accused of being a "UA apologist" for saying this, and I know it is miserable to try to sleep with the lights on on a long flight, but:

Engine failure over the Pacific = egregious mechanical failure.

Landing gear collapse on landing = egregious mechanical failure.

Having cabin lights on =/= egregious mechanical failure.

What a laugh. Do you have any evidence that anywhere near 100 people couldn't sleep? People sleep in bright daylight on planes. Not ideal for sleep, but it's not "impossible," especially with an eye mask, which tends to block the vast majority of light.

Why are some people so fixated on giving UA a pass for everything? Why is everything the passenger's fault? Why is it so out of line to expect things to be in good mechanical repair? Why are you romancing the brick that does not love you back?

If I'm paying $3000+ (or $300) to fly across the largest ocean on earth the lights better damn well shut off on a night flight. OP is absolutely entitled to compensation and to suggest he/she is "spoiled" for doing so is absurd.

What he said.

I'm surprised at the incredulity and animus. For some (many?) people, the cabin lights being on will absolutely disrupt or even prevent sleep. I feel great for those who can sleep in any conditions... but a lot of folks can't, and a transpac without any darkness is going to be a real pain for them.

I know I will be accused of being a "UA apologist" for saying this, and I know it is miserable to try to sleep with the lights on on a long flight, but:

Engine failure over the Pacific = egregious mechanical failure.

Landing gear collapse on landing = egregious mechanical failure.

Having cabin lights on =/= egregious mechanical failure.

My thoughts exactly.

Wing falls off = egregious failure.
Only chocolate (no vanilla) ice cream available != egregious failure.

You can get an awesome pair of sleep shades at Walgreen's for $5. I use them every night in hotels. But maybe I should try asking for free award points for the inconvenience of light leaking past the blackout curtains:p since I don't get any points in the first place for my 150 nights a year in hotels.

FAB

FAB

personally, i cannot sleep with something over my eyes. i do think it is kinda a big deal to have the lights on for such a long flight. perhaps some can sleep with the lights on, but i know i cannot and certainly if i catch a bit of zzzs, i will wake up quite a bit while the lights are on.

kinda funny how folks get mad about someone that is annoyed by the lights and that they ask for compensation. one would think the lights would work...wonder what else may not have worked?

Why are some people so fixated on giving UA a pass for everything? Why is everything the passenger's fault? Why is it so out of line to expect things to be in good mechanical repair? Why are you romancing the brick that does not love you back?

I don't think anyone is saying the problem is not UA's responsibility, rather, the debate is about the airline's obligation to its passengers for the inconvenience.

You appear to be insinuating that UA knowingly dispatched the flight with malfunctioning cabin systems. If they did know about the problem prior to departure, would you rather have the flight delayed to fix it? Or, if the problem was discovered in-flight, would you suggest the flight return/divert so a item not related to the safety of the aircraft or passengers can be fixed?

You appear to be insinuating that UA knowingly dispatched the flight with malfunctioning cabin systems. If they did know about the problem prior to departure, would you rather have the flight delayed to fix it? Or, if the problem was discovered in-flight, would you suggest the flight return/divert so a item not related to the safety of the aircraft or passengers can be fixed?

UA knowingly dispatches flights every day with cabins, fixtures, non-essential systems, etc. in various stages of disrepair. I would rather they didn't, instead of essentially giving them a pass by blaming the passenger for noticing.

UA knowingly dispatches flights every day with cabins, fixtures, non-essential systems, etc. in various stages of disrepair. I would rather they didn't, instead of essentially giving them a pass by blaming the passenger for noticing.

Would you rather have your flight delayed or cancelled? If you want something repaired, that may be the implication.

Also, where has UA ever blamed the passenger for noticing?

If you read my post I never blamed CO for the lights staying on. It was probably because some relay down in the avionics bay has been broken for who knows how long and hasn't been fixed because it isn't on the MEL. What I wanted to know is if there was any point to complain about this with CO running the show--where you might be lucky to get something if your International First seat doesn't recline.

Did you send them a note? Let us know what they say or give for this.

Did you send them a note? Let us know what they say or give for this.

Although the "standard" compensation levels fell post-merger, IME UA is still compensating pax for legitimate issues and at higher-than-previous levels. E.g. I got $400 for a swap from new 777 to old 777 in C. In the past, UA probably wouldn't have even compensated for that at all. (UA offered said compensation without complaint from me.)

If I'm paying $3000+ (or $300) to fly across the largest ocean on earth the lights better damn well shut off on a night flight. OP is absolutely entitled to compensation and to suggest he/she is "spoiled" for doing so is absurd.
It should be prorated then since only the last few hours of the HKG-ORD flight take place at night.

I don't understand why everyone is pretending that OP is over-entitled. Having lights on IS a mechanical failure. Not the same as an engine failure but I would say similar to AC failure.

Would you not be bothered if the AC failed and the cabin was 95 degrees the whole time? That will surely be compensation worthy. Why is this not?

I don't understand why everyone is pretending that OP is over-entitled. Having lights on IS a mechanical failure. Not the same as an engine failure but I would say similar to AC failure.

Would you not be bothered if the AC failed and the cabin was 95 degrees the whole time? That will surely be compensation worthy. Why is this not?

Broken air conditioning is a healthy issue (on the ground, no use in flight). Lights that don't work is a safety issue.

Lights that won't turn off are an annoyance.

I don't think anyone is saying the problem is not UA's responsibility, rather, the debate is about the airline's obligation to its passengers for the inconvenience.

You appear to be insinuating that UA knowingly dispatched the flight with malfunctioning cabin systems. If they did know about the problem prior to departure, would you rather have the flight delayed to fix it? Or, if the problem was discovered in-flight, would you suggest the flight return/divert so a item not related to the safety of the aircraft or passengers can be fixed?

^ winner

Would you not be bothered if the AC failed and the cabin was 95 degrees the whole time? That will surely be compensation worthy. Why is this not?
Once on a submarine patrol our AC system went down for the last two weeks of that patrol. The inside temp in the boat was somewhere in the upper 80's, low 90's range. It was hot, stuffy and everyone started smelling pretty bad, although I admit some of them already were pretty ripe. In general, it sucked.

I didn't receive any compensation. I think the US Navy classified it as an annoyance. ;)

I don't know. On SQ drinking Krug? Sure. On UA, not so much. :DThat's the solution! Drink more and you'll sleep, even with the lights on!

IMHO, one can see this issue from 2 sides:

1. If OP is flying for work spending maybe $ 6K+ on a business ticket, because he needs to get meetings/business done and he relies on being able to sleep on his flight from HKG to ORD, he is rightfully p.o. and some compensation / sign of understanding from UA or (any other airline with same experience) might be in order.

2. If OP is on a cheap ticket and maybe off to a vacation, maybe he could take it in stride and hope for some Karma that UA might be throwing a bone based on a nice letter about this flight.

I had an individual reading light that wouldn't turn off just last night. On a 10 hour overnight flight. And I can barely sleep on a plane when it is dark. I was trying to figure out how to rig my eye shade to cover the light when the FA turned on the cabin lights and my light finally miraculously went off. Then the FA turned the cabin lights off and I was afraid to turn my reading light on again and so I sat there in the dark for a few minutes when I remembered that I had been trying to go to sleep. So I put my eye shade on and went to sleep. Now my back hurts but not from the light being off but from sleeping in a chair. If I had been worrying about compensation I probably would have been so worked up that I would have been unable to sleep. And of course there is no way of knowing whether I would have the back ache had I not slept in said chair. Kind of like the only way to find out how much compensation you will get is to contact the other party and request said compensation. I'd say its worth 3,500 miles or a $100 cert.

I was on a HNL-EWR flight on Continental about 10 or so years ago and the lights (every single one of them, including the reading lights on the flexible arms in the BusinessFirst seats) were stuck on. And for some reason, they couldn't or didn't want to turn them off due to electrical issues. I think back then, Continental gave me a $500 or so travel voucher for the inconvenience.

You want compensation because the lights were on and you couldn't sleep on a flight? Ridiculous. Rainey was right, people are getting more and more over-entitled.

And this is acceptable because?? :confused:

If the beverage cart hits your seat and wakes you up, do you get compensation?

yes, especially if the cart crushed my leg and now I need medical attention.

If someone in the cabin is snoring and you can't sleep, do you get compensation?

no, but that's what earplugs are for.

An airplane is a shared space, and you can't have every comfort that you can have in a space of your own. If this isn't acceptable to you, then get a private jet.

I guess we know who needs to sleep with the lights on. ;)

Would you rather have your flight delayed or cancelled? If you want something repaired, that may be the implication.

But the choice is not between delays/cancellations and having a functional aircraft. I would rather have my plane be sufficiently maintained so that my flight does not have to be delayed or cancelled just to fix a problem. I really do not think that is too much to ask.


2. If OP is on a cheap ticket and maybe off to a vacation, maybe he could take it in stride...

Personally, I spend way more on vacation flights because I want to be well-rested when I arrive. That's why I moved my premium TPACs over to SQ, after all. Vacation time for me is rare and thus quite valuable. It's really far too simplistic to try to categorize pax by what they intend to do after the flight or even by what they paid.

Earplugs are acceptable, eye cover isn't... Right ptcha?

So it's "sickening" to draw attention to an egregious mechanical failure that made sleep impossible for +/-100 people on a TPAC? That's ridiculous. People don't want something for nothing. They want a minimally endurable service experience. It's absurd to give them flak for asking for it.

What a laugh. Do you have any evidence that anywhere near 100 people couldn't sleep? People sleep in bright daylight on planes. Not ideal for sleep, but it's not "impossible," especially with an eye mask, which tends to block the vast majority of light.


Why are some people so fixated on giving UA a pass for everything? Why is everything the passenger's fault? Why is it so out of line to expect things to be in good mechanical repair? Why are you romancing the brick that does not love you back?

Straw man argument.
I do not give UA a pass for everything. I just don't think that the OP had to suffer through the night because of the lighting problem, but could have been proactive and blocked the light, for example by using both the eyeshades and a blanket.
I didn't say or even imply that anything is the passenger's fault.
I did not state or imply that it is out of line to expect things to be in good mechanical repair. However, I disagree with you - I don't think the lighting problem was an "egregious" mechanical failure; I think it was a minor failure that resulted in an inconvenience.
I am not romancing anything.

Bottom line is, you have no evidence that it was "impossible" for 100 people to sleep on that plane. You did not answer my question that directly related to your post. I think your post was hyperbolic and you couldn't defend it. Instead, you created a group of straw man questions that implied falsely that I defend United for "everything" and blame the passenger for "everything."

On the SAN-ORD redeye last night, the crew kept the lights on for the first hour of the flight while they served beverages. Very friggin annoying, for a second I thought the lights were experiencing mechanical issues on this flight too.

But the choice is not between delays/cancellations and having a functional aircraft. I would rather have my plane be sufficiently maintained so that my flight does not have to be delayed or cancelled just to fix a problem. I really do not think that is too much to ask.

The plane is suitably maintained. Even UA did ever possible extra maintenance check it could think of, systems would still occasionally malfunction. At that point, would you rather fly with lights that don't turn off or have your flight cancelled?

What a thread!

I'd say that most people, including myself, are reacting to the expectation of compensation. What I assume, but don't know, that most people are asking for when they ask for compensation is not necessarily the 1,000 miles, but the apology. And if that's the case, I agree that one is due.

I do think that CO was bad about that aspect of their business. They tended to send form replies for these things, and while we pre-merger people were conditioned to accept it, it's galling to people who weren't, and honestly, it should be. However, the pre-merger UA response of giving people skykits for everything also conditioned the "what compensation am I due" culture. I think that's wrong as well.

UA knows that things break, and we all know that rather than cancel flights and inconvenience people for days, UA will send out a plane with something that can be fixed later. All airlines do this, and I suspect everyone here knows that too. What I'd suggest to all of us is that rather than saying gimme, gimme, gimme, we simply say "hey, it would have been nice for you to acknowledge that I was pretty inconvenienced, and do it in a way that genuinely reflects your awareness of that."

While it's anecdotal, that could be happening: trip to BOM last month the lie flat seat next to me broke. In a full cabin rather than busting the occupant down to Y, or worse in a full flight, the mechanic, lead-f/a and concierge apologized and the mechanic showed the lead-f/a how to recline the seat manually. Much better than $250 off your next flight.

The plane is suitably maintained. Even UA did ever possible extra maintenance check it could think of, systems would still occasionally malfunction. At that point, would you rather fly with lights that don't turn off or have your flight cancelled?

Why don't you ask the OP? Perhaps some people would rather have their flight delayed than be unable to sleep during a 14-hour TPAC flight, which is the whole point of this thread.

Was in C on AA288 PVG-ORD last fall - the reading lights in C for a couple rows were stuck on for the whole flight. A few of us made the FAs aware of it in case it could be fixed with a reset - it couldn't be fixed. It was super annoying. I didn't complain, but did receive 5k or 10k miles, likely because the FAs reported it and the company felt it was a noteworthy inconvenience.

I avoid early morning arriving eastbound NH flights if I can because they turn the lights on 1.5-2 hrs before landing - and they ARE indeed bright.

Having lights on at night is irritating - they go on and off for a reason after all. @:-) Making the airline aware of the problem is entirely appropriate. Some consideration for the inconvenience isn't unwarranted. I don't hear anyone asking for anything more than that. Why has this evoked such strong visceral reactions from some?

A couple of days ago I was on UA896 HKG-ORD, and a set of the main cabin lights stayed on for the entire flight. The FA said they were broken. It illuminated the entire cabin fairly brightly--enough that my eye mask really didn't work that well. I couldn't sleep the entire flight. In this COdbaUA world, is it even worth sending in a complaint for this?

Actually, the WHOLE point of this thread and to answer the OP's question.. Is it is worth sending in a complaint if HE thinks it's is worth complaining about and should he get something for his troubles?

Why don't you ask the OP? Perhaps some people would rather have their flight delayed than be unable to sleep during a 14-hour TPAC flight, which is the whole point of this thread.

As far as making this a, "Let's fly if everyone agrees to go with interior lights on the entire flight". I don't think an option of someone dropping a black ball in the hat is gonna FLY"!

Things happen, and things go haywire, but s-it happens, and if it does just write a letter and see what happens.

We have the "Compensationalists vs the "Your Screwed's" and no matter what anyone thinks, or feels, it's entirely up to the very sympathetic NEW UA CS reject crew (which has several meanings, as of late) to determine if a light shining in one's eyes for many hours is a big deal or not!

What a thread!

I'd say that most people, including myself, are reacting to the expectation of compensation. What I assume, but don't know, that most people are asking for when they ask for compensation is not necessarily the 1,000 miles, but the apology. And if that's the case, I agree that one is due.

I do think that CO was bad about that aspect of their business. They tended to send form replies for these things, and while we pre-merger people were conditioned to accept it, it's galling to people who weren't, and honestly, it should be. However, the pre-merger UA response of giving people skykits for everything also conditioned the "what compensation am I due" culture. I think that's wrong as well.

UA knows that things break, and we all know that rather than cancel flights and inconvenience people for days, UA will send out a plane with something that can be fixed later. All airlines do this, and I suspect everyone here knows that too. What I'd suggest to all of us is that rather than saying gimme, gimme, gimme, we simply say "hey, it would have been nice for you to acknowledge that I was pretty inconvenienced, and do it in a way that genuinely reflects your awareness of that."

While it's anecdotal, that could be happening: trip to BOM last month the lie flat seat next to me broke. In a full cabin rather than busting the occupant down to Y, or worse in a full flight, the mechanic, lead-f/a and concierge apologized and the mechanic showed the lead-f/a how to recline the seat manually. Much better than $250 off your next flight.

+1

On the SAN-ORD redeye last night, the crew kept the lights on for the first hour of the flight while they served beverages. Very friggin annoying, for a second I thought the lights were experiencing mechanical issues on this flight too.

And if they didn't serve drinks, someone would be complaining about it on FT.

+1
And if they didn't serve drinks, someone would be complaining about it on FT.

And to think, I actually enjoyed flying a lot more before I started reading FT daily. I think OP asks a reasonable question; and there's a reasonable discussion as to whether it qualifies. Or should qualify. Although it's really UA's call in the end.

Instead everyone's pissy at the apologists or the other team (complainers? Do they have a name yet?)